I hear a lot of people talk about how WOW raid leader skills can translate to real life, but you know something? Almost every single one of those people I know who lead large raid parties is nothing special when it comes to leading human beings or doing anything practical in real life. Almost none of them will ever lead a platoon, let alone a regiment or a design team. Many are immature 40 year olds who never really grew up, and hate their grownup life.
The main thing that separates these people from those they lead is a Life. The followers are more casual players, and the leaders are hard core.
And no, I'd never recommend putting it on your resume, or bragging about it.
Sure sometimes I tell parents that leading a large group in WOW will enhance certain skills, but the person in question is usually under 13 years of age.
You gotta admit the plane crash scene was awesome, the most visceral plane crash I've ever seen in a movie. I saw it in theaters and after that scene everyone was kind of like "Whoa"...
Absolutely I agree with you there. That scene stood out, the setup for it, the cold in the cabin, then when it all went to hell and he was hanging out of the open cabin with trees and snow flying by... that was incredible. Most immersive plane crash I've ever seen I agree. Sound work made a big difference...
It's why I thought of CASTAWAY with Tom Hanks. The crash in THE GREY was even much better than the one in CASTAWAY (which was itself a good plane crash scene).
I Saw the Devil. Incredible film, near masterpiece.
Hahah... I liked that movie a lot. To me, it had the tone of Se7en, done Korean style.
It did show the pointlessness of revenge though. If you got the bad guy, just stick a fork in him and make him dead already. Or torture murder him on the spot. Take hours if you like. Or days. Just don't freaking let him go.
But you really feel the nihilistic pointlessness of revenge.
Might as well get revenge on an earthquake or a branch falling, as get "revenge" on a serial killer.
Yes, its possible to waste time "having fun", though its difficult to define exactly where to draw the line, though maybe discussing it here could help define some of the ideas more clearly.
-
You have a finite time on this earth... and the closer you get to the end of it, the more you desperately wish you had more of it. So its a shame to "Kill time" between the "highlights"... it reminds me of that Adam Sandler movie where he finds a remote that lets him fast forward through life.
I went through a period of my life where I found tons of ways to "kill time", by playing videogames and watching movies, just to get through the lonely or boring parts... and really its a shame to waste time that way.
Fill your time with cultivating relationships or cultivating yourself, so that you will GO places and make the highlights that much HIGHER and BETTER.
Killing hours and hours doing nothing just leaves a bad taste in your mouth, and choosing it as any kind of lifestyle is no different than TRAINSPOTTING.
It sounded like she was talking about men in general, not just OP.
Also, he is taking the slightest hint. He's at least guessing that she might be interested in him, but he's not sure so I wouldn't call him clueless.
No he's being hit over the head with a message, and he's asking why the girl is giving him mixed signals.
Also, I have a story about this kind of situation:
Girl shows interest in me, I show interest in her, she then drifts away and doesn't want to have anything to do with me and loses interest in me. So it's totally okay for a girl to show interest in a guy, but the other way around is not.
Your conclusions from that story are way, way off base.
Have you ever considered the possibility that she was interested in you, got to know you a little bit, then decided she didn't really like you all that much, and would rather be with somebody else?
Have you ever considered the possibility that you just didn't have any game when it came to flirting back with her, and she quickly realized this was a waste of her time?
How can you possibly conclude that she lost interest in you BECAUSE you showed interest in her?
You act like having some girl "interested in you" is some kind of GOAL, the end purpose of this all. The goal is to make a connection. She was interested... and you gave it a shot, and she decided "nah, pass". No shame in that.
The only thing that showing interest in her did to the situation was put you in a position where you could 'lose face' a little if she lost interest in your. And she did.
But nothing ventured nothing gained. You have to take a risk if you want to win anything.
-
Common scenario I see with young guys who are nerdy and smart, but have little game, is that they are super passive, and don't want to risk being "humiliated" by going after a girl, and really their emotional control is so poor, that even rejecting them becomes an awkward thing for a girl, and so it can all be very uncomfortable.
Some girl will see some positive qualities in the guy, and show some interest, flirt maybe, and the guy, who is not really interested in that girl (doesn't think she's the prettiest, she is not his "first choice", and he doesn't think she's especially intriguing, but are kind of flattered that a cutish girl is interested in them, and would love it if the girl would just kind of throw themselves at the boy for easy sex or affection), just waits.. and waits... because he wants to be absolutely sure the girl is wanting HIM, before he even moves a ****ing finger. He finally shows interest, but in such a way that the girl realizes that she's STILL going to have to make all the moves. The "game" he displays is kind of indicative that he's not really seeing her, not really connecting with her, and he's just socially awkward. She knows from experience that a guy like this who is just not really connecting with her, but just acting on the fact that she's shown interest, will lose interest in her as soon as he nails her. She just figures out that he's not actually into her: He's just interested in her because she's interested in him. So she bales.
Then he sits there and wonders what he did wrong.
Girl shows interest in a guy, it means only that, nothing more. It doesn't mean that she's "DECLARED HERSELF FOR HIM" so that as soon as he shows interest, he can "bag" her.
Showing interest should be fine. Just try to relax, and not be so freaking awkward.
Although we will have more to come at DisCo on the Samsung-Apple verdict, I wanted to highlight a particular piece of curious information.
As many recent news reports have pointed out, the jury foreman, Velvin Hogan, is himself a patent owner. One of Mr. Hogan’s patents, for a “method and apparatus for recording and storing video information,” filed in 2002, appears to be for a DVR/media server with removable drives. In other words, a device that can record video and copy it onto a storage medium and make it accessible for on-demand viewing at a later date. Given the fact that the first TiVo was released in 1999, it is conceivable that this particular patent would not meet the non-obvious standard necessary to qualify for patent protection (despite a few extra bells and whistles, like that ability to use a wireless keyboard, connect to the Internet, edit media and order movies on demand) as it does little more than combine known methods and current technology. (KSR v. Teleflex, the most recent Supreme Court case on the “obviousness” standard for patentability, held that the “combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”)
It is an interesting fact that the legal interests of the foreman of the jury evaluating Apple’s allegedly obvious patents, such as the “pinch to zoom,” the “bounce back” and the “slide to unlock” functions, could be independently affected by whether the jury’s decision produced a nonobviousness standard more forgiving to the patent holder. (As one prominent software engineer noted in the NY Times, Apple’s patent of the pinch-to-zoom function is like a carmaker patenting “a circular steering wheel”.)
Of further interest is that Mr. Hogan’s own experience with the patent system (in which he himself is a stakeholder) did indeed color his views in assessing Samsung’s liability:
Hogan described the deliberations in vivid detail, saying the first task was to determine if Apple’s patents were valid because of Samsung’s arguments they were negated by “prior art” in the industry, essentially technology that existed for features such as touch screens before the introduction of the iPhone. Using his own experience getting a patent, Hogan said he had a revelation on the first night of deliberations while he watched television.
“I was thinking about the patents, and thought, ‘If this were my patent, could I defend it?’ ” Hogan recalled. “Once I answered that question as yes, it changed how I looked at things.”
Furthermore, Mr. Hogan’s views of patentability were reportedly very influential in getting the jury over the original patentability questions on which the entire case turned, as CNET’s interview with another juror makes clear:
“We were debating heavily, especially about the patents on bounce-back and pinch-to-zoom. Apple said they owned patents, but we were debating about the prior art [about similar technology that Samsung said existed before the iPhone debuted]. [Velvin] Hogan was jury foreman. He had experience. He owned patents himself…so he took us through his experience. After that it was easier.”
It will remain an interesting historical wrinkle that the most prominent decision-maker in this case could be so directly affected by the outcome — not as a member of the public who stood to benefit from the promotion of progress in the useful arts, but as the owner of an entitlement created by a patent system that has gone off the rails.
Not the only place I found this too.
Furthermore, the comments from jury clearly indicated this was PUNITIVE, when the judge clearly directed them that they COULD NOT GIVE PUNITIVE component to judgment here. In fact they pretty much skipped over the judge's instructions, primarily due to the bastard jury foreman who should never have been allowed to sit on this jury.
Velvin Hogan, the little mother****er, ignored the judge's instructions for his own ulterior motives, and in support of his own bull**** patents like his laughable DVR patent he's protecting.
He paraded himself in the jury room as basically an expert on patent law, and used his position as foreman to basically present his own evidence.
“I was watching a movie, but I was thinking about this and all the claims, one in particular, and I thought to myself, I can defend this. Then I thought, if I can defend this patent, as though it were my own, then I need to go back and tell my fellow jurors about this,” he explained. “I knew if I could defend this like it was mine, then I needed to look at the others.”
Hogan said it was at that very moment that $1 billion “went from left to right,” so to speak.
“Yes, it did, it did,” he recounted in an interview on Sunday evening.
Hogan then went about guiding his fellow jurors – an eclectic mix that included two engineers, a young rock music enthusiast, a Navy veteran, bike shop manager and a homemaker – through the herculean task of deciding who owned what in this battle of technology titans.
Hope he dies.
Also multiple clear errors on the jury's final verdict, contradictory stuff, bad math, and a decision made impossibly quickly, in faster time than it would have taken to even review the material.
Mods I wasn't sure if this would go in a subforum or here if it needs to be moved please do.
Anyway so I was recently having a dicussion with my dad about politics and big business. While the content isn't really relevant he came to a stance that honestly pissed me off.
His stance was that until I lived as many years as he did and had his experiences that my opinion on these subjects is uninformed and in general holds no water. I argued back that while I don't have the personal experience he does I can easily do my own research and look back at the very same history he lived through and come to a conclusion that is not only very valid but in many cases can be far more correct due to a lack of emotional connection that would grant me a far more non-bias point of view.
This seems to be a reoccuring thing in any debate we have is he always falls back into this same tired and frustrating arguement. Does this kind of arguement hold water or is it what I personally believe, IE his way or dismissing what I say to avoid having the debate if he doesn't like where it is going?
I highly doubt that he throws that at you as a "tactic" per se. Look at it from his point of view.
He saw you born, changed your diapers 5000-8000 times, watched as you learned your letters, cried over booboos, and announced ideas you learned in elementary school as if you had discovered them yourself.
Now in your 20s, when you start arguing your deep insights into politics with a tone of a full equal, or even talking down to him as if your current knowledge base makes you wiser or more qualified, of course his natural reaction is going to be:
"Why the hell would you think you actually KNOW the answer? I've seen you change your mind on these kinds of important issue 5 times on this over the past 5 years, just like I did when I was your age. If you really know the definitive answer to these things, why do you keep changing your mind?"
He knows what it was like to be 20 or 30. Do you know what it's like to be 50? Look back at the young bucks in high school, who think they're hot ****. As a guy in his 20s, don't you look back at those 16 year olds and say "Man, if you only knew how naive you are. Listen to MEEEEE..."
Its this stupid concept that many people have that "NOW I'M AT THE PINNACLE OF PHILOSOPHY AND ETHICS... at the PEAK OF HISTORY" (rather than some random point in the middle, and at victim of my own youth)
It's a little bit like people who think that mankind is on some kind of continuous ethical/political/moral climb, and that the wisdom of older people from earlier generations are invalidated because they had different prejudices than young adults of today, that we consider old fashioned.
Many of the more civilized Asian cultures respect their elders and their knowledge, experience, and wisdom, and those people who don't treat their elders with respect are just TRASH. Sure those elders may be senile, prejudiced, or wrong-thinking in their ways, but on many ways, you have a lot to learn from older people.
Really, just look at your own life: Do you honestly think you are no wiser than you were 5 years ago? 5 years before that? 15 years ago? 20? So how can you talk with a guy 20 years older than you, and refuse to even CONSIDER THE IDEA THAT HIS EXPERIENCE MEANS SOMETHING? Your tone and argumentation should reflext some respect for that experience, openly acknowledge what you DON'T know and haven't experienced, and work from there, with introducing your relatively untested arguments.
It reminds me of my dad arguing politics and against some more ultra-liberal ideas: "Have you ever actually experienced communism? Or lived under a totalitarian regime? You have no idea why I casually dismiss such systems as horrible."
Target is a brand that is rapidly falling in my book. Walmart.com's online returns is hassle free, and they are not afraid to leave honest negative reviews of products on their web site.
Target is unusual for a "reputable" online retailer to do that.
We purchased this stroller combination partially based on the glowing reviews (because this combination box is not sold on other sites, its a Target exclusive, there are no reviews on other sites that point out the incompatibility of the included carseat and stroller).
Amazon.com's reviews are overall quite reliable. Its how I figured out not to by that stupid SLAP CHOP (that I almost got in a store on an impulse purchase... how bad could it be for that price? Well Amazon users showed me) and most of the "as seen on TV" products.
It's ridiculous. Practically every item on Target.com has near perfect reviews, including products that get 1,2, and 3 star reviews on Amazon.com.
It makes their review system practically worthless.
Not only that, but I just reviewed a screwed product they sell on their website, and they promptly removed my 1 star review.
They sell a Graco stroller - carseat combination box (exclusive to target) where the carset attaches to the cupholder tray instead of a metal bar.
Most graco strollers you'd use with a carseat have a metal bar that is horizontal and the carseat latches onto, and then higher up there are two little shelves that the carseat rests on so there is virtually no "play" between the carseat and stroller after you attach the two little black elastic "hooks" into the notches.
This cupholder on this particular graco stroller that the carseat attaches to is horizontal, but asymmetric because of the cupholder goes straight down into the tray, but the other "wide bowl" side dips very shallow and at an angle, so the carseat cannot sit level on top of it. Absolutely no way does it sit level. It simply wobbles with at least 1 inch of play, no matter how tight you latch it down with the black elastics up top. Its further exacerbated by the fact that there are no "shelves" or anything else on the main bars of the stroller for the carseat to rest on. The lip on each side of the stroller just rests on a 45 degree angle bar of the stroller, and slides back and forth, there is no natural resting point, the carseat simply slides back and forth a good couple of inches because of the "play". As a result, even with the black elastic fasteners slid down or up or anywhere, the carseat has a tremendous amount of "play between it and the stroller.
the instructions clearly show it attached exactly where I'm describing and its just unsafe and just not confidence-inducing to attach a carseat to a flimsy plastic tray which is snapped to the stroller frame, and which the carseat will not even sit level on.
I wrote a review on this on target.com, and it was shortly removed from their reviews. No explanation, no email from target explaining it. They just removed the review.
What's wrong with men being passive? Why do men have to be the ones to take initiative? It sounds like you're trying to enforce gender roles.
what are you talking about: girl is being interactive and communicating, and OP is being HYPER passive and clueless, and expecting the girl to just read his mind, and cannot take the slightest hint.
They're impressive,very nice rendering. But not impressed with them as art, per se.
They're more meticulous than anything else.
-
When I was in my 20s I free handed different denominations of bills and sometimes photographs using a 4 color Bic during college and med school lectures to pass the time, and while they were not usually as good as these, I blew them out in 15-30 minutes, and occasionally I produced stuff that had that "photo-real" look to it, not as good as the first girl, but sometimes on par with the pearl earing picture. It's just copying, I bet he finds it relaxing. I think he's doing something similar in terms of mental process with a little more meticulousness and patience.
Think about it: he spent 20+ hours on a single picture. It's a hobby and he's being a human xerox. While a nice skill to have, and it impresses people who dont draw, you can't make much money for it, and it's not actually very creative.
What is 20 hours of your time worth? If your make minimum wage, at $160? Will people pay that? And if they do so regularly, you now have a min wage job drawing?
Yes, if your not afraid to open it, On a laptop, I know you can disconnect the screen because there is a little flat connector that slides into a slot on most screens. This is REVERSIBLE so you don't ruin the phone.
I agree that the easiest way to disable the new phone is to kill the power so open the cell phone body, and clip wire that goes to any of the three battery contacts. Since you have a cheapo copy of the original phone you can do that.
Alternatively you can just disable the SIM card. I would bet that running a neodymium magnet over it would work... Heck, just call and turn off the service on the SIM on the dummy phone you're using.
The issue is not just whether he cheated. The question is also what is a reasonable level of personal harrassment and scrutiny an individual's results should be subject to.
Regardless if whether he is guilty or innocent, individuals other than LancArmstrong do not have infinite resources to fight something like this decades long witch hunt.
Since we speak of accountability and public trust for the "sanctity" of "pure sport", there must be some kind of accountability and limitation in the power of persecution. I personal vendettas can be pursued like this based on carte Blanche police powers that have no time limit and no limit of scope, what is to stop them from going after the top black athlete or the top gay athlete or just the athlete who displeases them personally?
It's not just a matter of "he probably cheated" so therefore the persecutors are vindicated. If Over half the field is doing a SIMILAR or WORSE thing, then it becomes a SELECTIVELY enforced rule. Sure they punish when they publicly announce doping cases, but it's SELECTIVELY investigated.
It's picking one athlete you despise for whatever reasons and trying to take them down and subjecting them to separate rules. "Fair" my ass.
The Grey... Way, way too dark and full of itself for what a movie that performa best in a thriller/adventure movie. Did it want to be kind of Castaway with Aliens? Just such a grim tone.
They played the main character way too cool and charismatic if they really are going for hyper-realistic dramatic "we all die" kind of serious piece.
I'm uncertain what the director's intent was.
That said, it was not terrible. Just could have been a lot better if they'd stuck with realism and stark fear the whole way through. Neeson played a tad bit too heroic and idealized, made you slip in and out of immersion. That kind of uneven tone can just kill a movie. Reminds me a bit of why standup comedy is so difficult.
The main thing that separates these people from those they lead is a Life. The followers are more casual players, and the leaders are hard core.
And no, I'd never recommend putting it on your resume, or bragging about it.
Sure sometimes I tell parents that leading a large group in WOW will enhance certain skills, but the person in question is usually under 13 years of age.
Just saying there are far better things you can do with your time than the "ALL YOU CAN EAT GORGE-FEST" of videogames.
Especially if you play by yourself.
It's why I thought of CASTAWAY with Tom Hanks. The crash in THE GREY was even much better than the one in CASTAWAY (which was itself a good plane crash scene).
Hahah... I liked that movie a lot. To me, it had the tone of Se7en, done Korean style.
It did show the pointlessness of revenge though. If you got the bad guy, just stick a fork in him and make him dead already. Or torture murder him on the spot. Take hours if you like. Or days. Just don't freaking let him go.
But you really feel the nihilistic pointlessness of revenge.
Might as well get revenge on an earthquake or a branch falling, as get "revenge" on a serial killer.
-
You have a finite time on this earth... and the closer you get to the end of it, the more you desperately wish you had more of it. So its a shame to "Kill time" between the "highlights"... it reminds me of that Adam Sandler movie where he finds a remote that lets him fast forward through life.
I went through a period of my life where I found tons of ways to "kill time", by playing videogames and watching movies, just to get through the lonely or boring parts... and really its a shame to waste time that way.
Fill your time with cultivating relationships or cultivating yourself, so that you will GO places and make the highlights that much HIGHER and BETTER.
Killing hours and hours doing nothing just leaves a bad taste in your mouth, and choosing it as any kind of lifestyle is no different than TRAINSPOTTING.
Your conclusions from that story are way, way off base.
Have you ever considered the possibility that she was interested in you, got to know you a little bit, then decided she didn't really like you all that much, and would rather be with somebody else?
Have you ever considered the possibility that you just didn't have any game when it came to flirting back with her, and she quickly realized this was a waste of her time?
How can you possibly conclude that she lost interest in you BECAUSE you showed interest in her?
You act like having some girl "interested in you" is some kind of GOAL, the end purpose of this all. The goal is to make a connection. She was interested... and you gave it a shot, and she decided "nah, pass". No shame in that.
The only thing that showing interest in her did to the situation was put you in a position where you could 'lose face' a little if she lost interest in your. And she did.
But nothing ventured nothing gained. You have to take a risk if you want to win anything.
-
Common scenario I see with young guys who are nerdy and smart, but have little game, is that they are super passive, and don't want to risk being "humiliated" by going after a girl, and really their emotional control is so poor, that even rejecting them becomes an awkward thing for a girl, and so it can all be very uncomfortable.
Some girl will see some positive qualities in the guy, and show some interest, flirt maybe, and the guy, who is not really interested in that girl (doesn't think she's the prettiest, she is not his "first choice", and he doesn't think she's especially intriguing, but are kind of flattered that a cutish girl is interested in them, and would love it if the girl would just kind of throw themselves at the boy for easy sex or affection), just waits.. and waits... because he wants to be absolutely sure the girl is wanting HIM, before he even moves a ****ing finger. He finally shows interest, but in such a way that the girl realizes that she's STILL going to have to make all the moves. The "game" he displays is kind of indicative that he's not really seeing her, not really connecting with her, and he's just socially awkward. She knows from experience that a guy like this who is just not really connecting with her, but just acting on the fact that she's shown interest, will lose interest in her as soon as he nails her. She just figures out that he's not actually into her: He's just interested in her because she's interested in him. So she bales.
Then he sits there and wonders what he did wrong.
Girl shows interest in a guy, it means only that, nothing more. It doesn't mean that she's "DECLARED HERSELF FOR HIM" so that as soon as he shows interest, he can "bag" her.
Showing interest should be fine. Just try to relax, and not be so freaking awkward.
http://www.project-disco.org/intellectual-property/a-jury-of-your-peers-apple-v-samsung-jury-foreman-also-holds-questionable-tech-patents-too/
Not the only place I found this too.
Furthermore, the comments from jury clearly indicated this was PUNITIVE, when the judge clearly directed them that they COULD NOT GIVE PUNITIVE component to judgment here. In fact they pretty much skipped over the judge's instructions, primarily due to the bastard jury foreman who should never have been allowed to sit on this jury.
Velvin Hogan, the little mother****er, ignored the judge's instructions for his own ulterior motives, and in support of his own bull**** patents like his laughable DVR patent he's protecting.
He paraded himself in the jury room as basically an expert on patent law, and used his position as foreman to basically present his own evidence.
Hope he dies.
Also multiple clear errors on the jury's final verdict, contradictory stuff, bad math, and a decision made impossibly quickly, in faster time than it would have taken to even review the material.
Is it better to reaffirm how smart you are? Or is it better to learn something new?
I highly doubt that he throws that at you as a "tactic" per se. Look at it from his point of view.
He saw you born, changed your diapers 5000-8000 times, watched as you learned your letters, cried over booboos, and announced ideas you learned in elementary school as if you had discovered them yourself.
Now in your 20s, when you start arguing your deep insights into politics with a tone of a full equal, or even talking down to him as if your current knowledge base makes you wiser or more qualified, of course his natural reaction is going to be:
"Why the hell would you think you actually KNOW the answer? I've seen you change your mind on these kinds of important issue 5 times on this over the past 5 years, just like I did when I was your age. If you really know the definitive answer to these things, why do you keep changing your mind?"
He knows what it was like to be 20 or 30. Do you know what it's like to be 50? Look back at the young bucks in high school, who think they're hot ****. As a guy in his 20s, don't you look back at those 16 year olds and say "Man, if you only knew how naive you are. Listen to MEEEEE..."
Its this stupid concept that many people have that "NOW I'M AT THE PINNACLE OF PHILOSOPHY AND ETHICS... at the PEAK OF HISTORY" (rather than some random point in the middle, and at victim of my own youth)
It's a little bit like people who think that mankind is on some kind of continuous ethical/political/moral climb, and that the wisdom of older people from earlier generations are invalidated because they had different prejudices than young adults of today, that we consider old fashioned.
Many of the more civilized Asian cultures respect their elders and their knowledge, experience, and wisdom, and those people who don't treat their elders with respect are just TRASH. Sure those elders may be senile, prejudiced, or wrong-thinking in their ways, but on many ways, you have a lot to learn from older people.
Really, just look at your own life: Do you honestly think you are no wiser than you were 5 years ago? 5 years before that? 15 years ago? 20? So how can you talk with a guy 20 years older than you, and refuse to even CONSIDER THE IDEA THAT HIS EXPERIENCE MEANS SOMETHING? Your tone and argumentation should reflext some respect for that experience, openly acknowledge what you DON'T know and haven't experienced, and work from there, with introducing your relatively untested arguments.
It reminds me of my dad arguing politics and against some more ultra-liberal ideas: "Have you ever actually experienced communism? Or lived under a totalitarian regime? You have no idea why I casually dismiss such systems as horrible."
Target is unusual for a "reputable" online retailer to do that.
We purchased this stroller combination partially based on the glowing reviews (because this combination box is not sold on other sites, its a Target exclusive, there are no reviews on other sites that point out the incompatibility of the included carseat and stroller).
Amazon.com's reviews are overall quite reliable. Its how I figured out not to by that stupid SLAP CHOP (that I almost got in a store on an impulse purchase... how bad could it be for that price? Well Amazon users showed me) and most of the "as seen on TV" products.
http://www.amazon.com/Ontel-SLAPC-MC6-Slap-Chop/dp/B0023SNDYC/ref=sr_1_cc_2?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1346164842&sr=1-2-catcorr&keywords=slap+chop
The reviews are hilarious:
"Slap me for purchasing this"
"ummmmmmmmm..........no"
"not even worth the 1.00 i paid for it in the thrift store"
It makes their review system practically worthless.
Not only that, but I just reviewed a screwed product they sell on their website, and they promptly removed my 1 star review.
They sell a Graco stroller - carseat combination box (exclusive to target) where the carset attaches to the cupholder tray instead of a metal bar.
Most graco strollers you'd use with a carseat have a metal bar that is horizontal and the carseat latches onto, and then higher up there are two little shelves that the carseat rests on so there is virtually no "play" between the carseat and stroller after you attach the two little black elastic "hooks" into the notches.
This cupholder on this particular graco stroller that the carseat attaches to is horizontal, but asymmetric because of the cupholder goes straight down into the tray, but the other "wide bowl" side dips very shallow and at an angle, so the carseat cannot sit level on top of it. Absolutely no way does it sit level. It simply wobbles with at least 1 inch of play, no matter how tight you latch it down with the black elastics up top. Its further exacerbated by the fact that there are no "shelves" or anything else on the main bars of the stroller for the carseat to rest on. The lip on each side of the stroller just rests on a 45 degree angle bar of the stroller, and slides back and forth, there is no natural resting point, the carseat simply slides back and forth a good couple of inches because of the "play". As a result, even with the black elastic fasteners slid down or up or anywhere, the carseat has a tremendous amount of "play between it and the stroller.
the instructions clearly show it attached exactly where I'm describing and its just unsafe and just not confidence-inducing to attach a carseat to a flimsy plastic tray which is snapped to the stroller frame, and which the carseat will not even sit level on.
I wrote a review on this on target.com, and it was shortly removed from their reviews. No explanation, no email from target explaining it. They just removed the review.
They're more meticulous than anything else.
-
When I was in my 20s I free handed different denominations of bills and sometimes photographs using a 4 color Bic during college and med school lectures to pass the time, and while they were not usually as good as these, I blew them out in 15-30 minutes, and occasionally I produced stuff that had that "photo-real" look to it, not as good as the first girl, but sometimes on par with the pearl earing picture. It's just copying, I bet he finds it relaxing. I think he's doing something similar in terms of mental process with a little more meticulousness and patience.
Think about it: he spent 20+ hours on a single picture. It's a hobby and he's being a human xerox. While a nice skill to have, and it impresses people who dont draw, you can't make much money for it, and it's not actually very creative.
What is 20 hours of your time worth? If your make minimum wage, at $160? Will people pay that? And if they do so regularly, you now have a min wage job drawing?
I agree that the easiest way to disable the new phone is to kill the power so open the cell phone body, and clip wire that goes to any of the three battery contacts. Since you have a cheapo copy of the original phone you can do that.
Alternatively you can just disable the SIM card. I would bet that running a neodymium magnet over it would work... Heck, just call and turn off the service on the SIM on the dummy phone you're using.
Regardless if whether he is guilty or innocent, individuals other than LancArmstrong do not have infinite resources to fight something like this decades long witch hunt.
Since we speak of accountability and public trust for the "sanctity" of "pure sport", there must be some kind of accountability and limitation in the power of persecution. I personal vendettas can be pursued like this based on carte Blanche police powers that have no time limit and no limit of scope, what is to stop them from going after the top black athlete or the top gay athlete or just the athlete who displeases them personally?
It's not just a matter of "he probably cheated" so therefore the persecutors are vindicated. If Over half the field is doing a SIMILAR or WORSE thing, then it becomes a SELECTIVELY enforced rule. Sure they punish when they publicly announce doping cases, but it's SELECTIVELY investigated.
It's picking one athlete you despise for whatever reasons and trying to take them down and subjecting them to separate rules. "Fair" my ass.
Hire some bozos to "clean up" the sport in order to perpetuate this illusion.
They played the main character way too cool and charismatic if they really are going for hyper-realistic dramatic "we all die" kind of serious piece.
I'm uncertain what the director's intent was.
That said, it was not terrible. Just could have been a lot better if they'd stuck with realism and stark fear the whole way through. Neeson played a tad bit too heroic and idealized, made you slip in and out of immersion. That kind of uneven tone can just kill a movie. Reminds me a bit of why standup comedy is so difficult.